PvXwiki talk:Build Merging
I am sick and tired of seeing dancing dagger builds out the wazu, the newest, Conjure warriors, Super Slash, Gash, Final THRUST! We need to make a specific merging procedure on how to handle it. Not just the candidate selection and what not, but the process of how to merge them and ensure the variants and their minor adaptive changes are reflected in the final product. : One thing I do want to see is a Merge Page. In addition to tagging the desired, redundant pages, those builds also get added to a listings page where the parant build is on top, followed by the builds to be merged. THis would make working on merging those builds easier to see and handle, and would allow us to find and work on those builds much more easily than stumbling upon them. Also there could be a 'unclaimed' merg bin spot on the page where those builds we KNOW there is a near duplicate out there, but just can't find it, can put the build as to put it into a holding pattern untill we find the original build. Shireensysop 01:05, 16 June 2007 (EDT) this policy, in it's current state, would merge basically all of our favored warrior sword-wielding builds. optional being the elite skill. - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 15:08, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Whats wrong with that? I think someone (can't remember whom) is currently working on a warrior guide that will assist in doing just that. Shireensysop 15:17, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Sideline discussion (Merging favored with unfavored) is generally a bad idea =) - Skakid9090 14:49, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Then how the F* are we going to get all these guys to shut the hell up and stop making these builds. If we straight up wipe every build that comes along, were gonna keep running into the same problems. Strongest on top, variants at the bottom. And if it's really, really bad, the community will correct itself. It allways has. It's just no one is doing merging propperly so that the variants are both VISABLE and the original author doesnt feel slighted. Im trying to fix that. Shireensysop 14:51, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Oh, I have no problem with similar builds being merged. But taking builds that didn't pass community vetting and putting them into the good builds isn't a good idea. - Skakid9090 14:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Then how else do we merge a build. Because if it's on the talk page, people wont see it, and it will get lost. Thats why I specifically gave it it's own section at the very very bottom of the build (to clearly distinguish it from the above vetted build). I am trying to set site policy cuz the few inquiries I've poked around has gotten me nothing. Everyone here seems to be very reactive in nature. So I am just throwing my idea into practice for reaction. How would you suggest we handle merges across favored/unfavored lines? Most merges are basically diffent play style flavors that might sute a person better than another. Respond here if you'd like. But if you get a serious idea on how to handle it dump it here. pvxwiki:Build Merging, because as soon as I finish my grand field experiment, Im gonna be writting all down in that article. Shireensysop 14:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT) I'm totally against merging acually, to contradict my previous statement. Variants are fine, and if builds are similar, simply delete the similar build. - Skakid9090 15:00, 25 June 2007 (EDT) And loose the essence of the similar build? I feel that would be a waste. Shireensysop 14:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Ack! /shudder. This brings back memories. Over on GWiki, someone went on a merging spree, amalgamating everything that had similiar skill bars. Most noticeably, Mending Touch Cripshots and Burning Arrow Rangers (only 1 skil different), Healing and Prot Monks (standard core: RoF, GoH, Dismiss, PS/SB/SoA, e-mgmt/utility, elite), and al sorts of warriors (Sever-Gash-FT especially). That would have been one of the wiki's worst mistakes in the builds section. Those builds are all used very differently. Luckily, Rapta and many other (dare I say, more experienced) players spoke out against it loudly enough to have it overturned. All this merging is a horrible idea. Merging builds into guides, yes. Merging builds into uber-builds, no. You see the same skills popping up everywhere because, in the game's current incarnation, they are good. Dismiss Cond > Mend Ailment, Condition, Purge Cond, so it gets used more often. Flagstand wars may have similiar bars to splittable ones (splitters have more survivability, even a one skill difference), but they are intended for entirely different purposes. Don't strip a build's purpose down to: Warriors - Hit stuff. It is not that simple, period. - Krowman 16:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT) : I see your point. So we do need to define what subtleties warrant a varation, and subtleties warrant either unfavored, or lower scoreing individual builds. At what point is a merge warranted? Shireensysop 16:34, 25 June 2007 (EDT) ::To work with your Warrior example above, take 2 spittable sword wars. One has Plague Touch, one has Mending Touch (which is ftw). Those two builds could be merged, because they function similiarly. Now, one of those builds compared to a more flagstand war. Flagstand would have Bull's instead of condition removal. A minute difference, but does not warrant a merge. Cripshots and BAs could never ever be merged. One spreads Cripple and Poison, the other ganks. Even though they are only one skill different, there'd be no merger for these two. - Krowman 16:39, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Thats a level of subtlety that is outside of my grasp for any build other than monking or some elementalists. Is there a viable middle ground? Or, in the event of a merge candidate, we hand it over to designated Syops to determine whether the bar needs to be placed at the bottom of another page for merger. I've done that with a few builds out there so far (Shadow prison sin being one of them) as an example. Shireensysop 16:46, 25 June 2007 (EDT) Note Just to clarify, there IS in fact a category of all builds to be merged. I can be found here. Aside from that though, I don't see the real purpose for this policy, inevitably, these merges have to be decided on a case by case basis because there is never a way to define what constitutes a merge in all cases. There are simply too many extenuating factors. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 16:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT) :: Okay, if everything is done by a case by case basis on what constitutes merging, we can at least define the propper way of HOW to merge. Shireensysop 19:15, 27 June 2007 (EDT) Im just trying to set down guidelines to what deserves merging, and how to actually do the merge. Right now a merge is to simply mention the differing skills, via text, at the bottom of the page. This, in practice, doesn't happen as often as it should (hence all the copy cat builds) and people are not 'reading' those variations, or if they are, there not making the connection. A marge would be best illustraited with a small mini-bar or a full sized bar of a significant varation at the bottom of the page. And to contradict my statement above, Build Merging CAN be quantified. Everyone originally said that voting could not be quantified, but we now have a vetting/rating system that is being worked together. So it stands to reasons, loose guidelines for criteria and procedures for merging could be established to help this place run more smoothly. It's one of those make it up as we go, on a case by case, basis things that could be fixed. Im just wanting to help establish more consistancy here on the wiki. Shireensysop 05:27, 26 June 2007 (EDT) BUMP bring up my.. article. - [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 02:08, 24 July 2007 (CEST) :Less bump Skakid ;). [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 02:09, 24 July 2007 (CEST) :: *ram* -- Armond Warblade 17:00, 24 July 2007 (CEST) Delete, not Merge What usually occurs with a merge is simply one person (usually the writer) having a fit over his/her build being moved to "Trash" and throws a merge tag, since the wiki happened to have a variant of the build already vetted. Then follows the continous transfer of unfavored information onto favored builds. Clear examples of this occured on many prominent builds we now host, including the SP sin, /A monks, /Mo rangers, barragers, etc... This should not happen at all, and the best solution is to simply delete the second build, not merge random pieces of it onto the vetted version of the builds. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 07:38, 27 July 2007 (CEST) :I don't see that as the case at all. Most of those people who throw a fit are upset that their build is being delete and not favored. The idea of their masterpiece being merged is usually inconcieveable. 90% of all merge tags are placed by Admins, not users. Shireensysop 07:40, 27 July 2007 (CEST) ::I don't believe you were here when the initial "crisis" occured on the GuildWiki, when one person decided to merge anything that had traces of other builds in it, and decided to put everything together. It took weeks before a decision was made to delete those builds and separate those articles into the original stage (too much bullcrap on one page). All I'm trying to say is that merges are generally a bad idea, and instead of having a policy to possibly encourage them, they should be avoided. A dire split we need right now, for example, is in the Barrager article, when the Vigorous Barrage solo farmer build was merged into it. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 07:46, 27 July 2007 (CEST) :::I'm with rapta here, check Build:R/any Tank Master history for an example. - — [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 07:48, 27 July 2007 (CEST) ::::Skadid, Could you point out what part of that history you're talking about? And I feel that i must argue for this policy. It would be good for extremely similar builds such as Build:D/N Orders Dervish and Build:D/N Dervish Orders, or maybe 2 assassin builds with the same attack chain, but different self-healing. ~ ZamaneeJinn 01:17, 2 August 2007 (CEST) :::::Another example is Build:Team - Ancestors' Rage Spike and Build:Team - Ancestors' Spike. Don't get me wrong, i wasn't happy about that uber-merge either, but that doesn't mean that merging is bad, period. Besides, what are the chances of some idiot doing that again? ~ ZamaneeJinn 01:27, 2 August 2007 (CEST) ::::::Tbh, in practice we don't end up merging our top-caliber builds anyways. Many builds use the same skills because they are the most effective in the current game balance. We don't normally merge unfavored builds with good ones either. I am usually opposed to merges, but for different reasons than Rapta. Many different sin builds use BLS, BSS and TF because they are good, but it would unacceptable for us to post a bar with those 3 skills in it and a bunch of variants. Monks use Return because it is good, and so forth. Merging similar builds is usually well-intentioned but misguided. See Build talk:R/Mo Burning Arrow Ranger for an example. Cripshots=/= BAs, even though they are only one skill apart. (Btw, ouch. I suggested a merge on one of those discussion pages). :-) - Krowman 01:32, 2 August 2007 (CEST) :::::::I Understand that. but builds as insanely similar as the two pairs that i mentioned SHOULD be merged. we should write in the policy what the criteria for deciding which builds can/should be merged are, to help avert problems like that. ~ ZamaneeJinn 01:43, 2 August 2007 (CEST) Merging is bad imo we shouldn't merge anything. i disagree with this policy. variants can be added to an existing build, and if people disagree they can say it on the talk page. that means theres no reason to post a new build. duplicate or inferior builds are deleted as per PW:WELL. to sum it up Merging sucks and isn't necessary, don't do it.. —''The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by'' Skakid9090 ( ). 06:04, 5 August 2007 (CEST) :Merging could easily have its uses. I hate to use one of my own as an example, but if you take a look at my Fiery Thunderburst or Coal Spiker builds, should they be properly submitted, compared to the Thunderbow build, it's quite easy to see that all three builds are not quite variants of each other, but could quite easily warrant merging. Each has it's own purpose, but relies upon massive degen and Thunderclap to easily eliminate threats. It's this users personal opinion that cases such as this could be easily handled through Merging. cedave ( _buildpage) 20:27, 14 August 2007 (CEST) ::your examples=no. ~ [[User:ZamaneeJinn|'ZamaneeJinn']] ( ) 22:13, 14 August 2007 (CEST) if there's no objections... im gonna move this to rejected policies tomorrow since we just delete ala PW:WELL instead of merging. — [[User:Skakid9090|'Skakid9090']] 05:28, 17 August 2007 (CEST) No objections. Nuke away. Shireensysop 19:57, 20 September 2007 (CEST)